Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    August 11, 2012 11:00pm-11:30pm PDT

11:00 pm
>> i would like to remind the commission that even mr. kopp said when you are making evidenciary release about fact witnesses, information did not need to be admitted into reliance -- into evidence. i will not belabor the issue. >> mr. kopp, 135. >> i think, i do not have the williams declaration before me with the portions that were struck. i am not sure if part of this was not in evidence. i do not have any particular comments on this paragraph. >> i think i thought was the
11:01 pm
relevance problem is we struck paragraph four. i think -- i think the first two sentences rely on paragraph 3 might be ok. ms. kaiser, do you have a response with respect to paragraph 135? >> i guess i would say that even the part you want to strike is consistent with what she was testifying to, the ease with which sound travels. i do not have feelings about it. >> i would recommend we strike lines 23 through 25 of paragraph 135. is there any dissenting view from the commissioners?
11:02 pm
139. ms. kaiser? >> this is the portion of the williams decoration that was readmitted by agreement. >> ok. 135 -- 139 is in. 139 relies on 142. is that i invite this position?
11:03 pm
it was not in previously. >> that is not part of the stipulation. i will grant you you're standing objection on evidence being not admitted. is there any objection from the commissioners to excluding 142 which relies on paragraph 13 of volumes which was excluded from evidence? ok. that will be excluded. i think i had said 146 to 150. in light of us having admitted flores, this probably should come in. ms. kaiser, i truss to agree.
11:04 pm
>> yes. >> mr. kopp. >> i will submit. i do not have any argument. president of the we should strike 1463150 unless there the -- there is a dissenting view -- 146 through 150. i had 182 to 184, which is a big chunk. this seemed to relate more to events that occurred after what we're concerned about but i opened it up for argument from mr. kopp and ms. kaiser and the
11:05 pm
commissioners to express their views. >> my only comment is this goes along with my objection to that bullet point that still i do not think has been ruled upon. sheriff mirkarimi's post december 31 through january 13 statements, january 4 statement. -- statements. i do not see the relevance. >> i would like to address the two portions that are encompassed your separately. >> ok. >> the this one -- first one is ms. lopez's statement. 1523157, i -- 152 through 157. it goes to the victim was the credibility and finds that she
11:06 pm
is recanting. she is describing things that suggest the testimony you heard was a recantation rather than finally getting to the truth. i think this is relevant for the direct point i and brown -- in brown. >> the core of it, actually. >> i would overrule over that. >> objection. >> any dissenting view? it is tangential but it is along the same lines. ok. >> you're talking about 151 to 157? i would agree. in terms of the next batch, 158 through 180, this goes directly to what commissioner liu was talking about last time.
11:07 pm
whether or not these indicationn unreformed better at this point, has not fully rehabilitated himself if indeed he was a better in the first place. -- a batterer in the first place. it is rebuttal evidence more than anything else. you heard the sheriff come in and testify after you gave me these instructions. you heard him come in and testify that there is a new professional standard that he can help set as the chief law- enforcement officer by modeling the power of personal redemption. frankly, that may be true. that may be a valuable standard but a chief law enforcement -- that a chief law-enforcement officer could model pre we do not dispute that. what we do dispute is whether or not he is ready to model it. now, i agree, i know you're thinking, what does that have to do with whether he committed
11:08 pm
official misconduct in the first place? libya had -- maybe it has nothing to do with it. if you are going to entertain that line of thought and that line of argument or be sympathetic to it, i think this evidence needs to come in. >> ms. kaiser, what i want to say for the record is that i did talk about these paragraphs at the last meeting will lead discussed dr. -- when we discussed dr. tillemann -- lemmon's testimony. i do not think that we're here to determine whether he is acting like an unreformed batterer.
11:09 pm
we're here to determine what conduct took place and whether that conduct, whether those actions rose to the level of official misconduct. and want to make the record clear that that was my position and still is. >> you are right. i should address that. i got a little in love with my rebuttal argument which i think it is a good argument. to go back to your point, i think that is relevant in the same sense that some of the other evidence that you are striking is relevant. it goes to the likely head again, this is a major domestic violence relationship, his conduct before the event is relevant to try to figure that out and his conduct and stevens after the event are also relevant to try to figure that out. it is the same rationale, just a different. in time. -- a different period in time. >> those arguments, you are
11:10 pm
correct, i think they are irrelevant. that might assuage your fears as to whether this is going to help us are not. at least in my view. >> i would ask then that testimony that i am happy to identify it be stricken. it stays in the record but my rebuttal evidence is excluded, a different decision maker could come to a different conclusion. >> i think you -- did you object to it at the time? >> no. >> then, it is in. any dissenting views for my fellow commissioners as to what 58 -158 t-- to 158 to 159. >> thank you.
11:11 pm
i think that is right. a -- i definitely will come -- welcome being corrected. if there are others i have missed. >> i believe the apology to miss madison in court is already in. that is in paragraph 161. and 162 is also already in as an exhibit.
11:12 pm
163 is the same. >> 1/5 -- 164 is the basis for [inaudible] >> ok. so we have got -- you have identified once see one, 162, 163, -- 161, 162, 163. yes, and went 59, i do not know if we have already -- were down with that. -- 159, i do not know if we have already -- were done with that.
11:13 pm
160 is out and i regard to 164 is out. i'm not trying to strike mila testimony here. i am trying to keep track. >> if there are others where you find -- there are others as you are going through them where you feel we have relied on the testimony. i think we should reconsider that. >> 166 is prior inconsistent statement. it is inconsistent with sheriff mirkarimi's testimony that he was seeking couples counseling. >> i would be inclined to exclude that. i think using an expert as rebuttal testimony, i do not think is going to be helpful to us. >> it seems to me that the
11:14 pm
commission is concerned about the opinion being based on admissible evidence. and that is admissible evidence because it is a prior inconsistent statement. none of the expert's opinion is being offered as fact evidence. it is offered as an opinion about the situation based on the indicators that the expert consider reliable. this is not being offered for -- as factual evidence. it is being offered as the basis of an opinion and it is the basis of an opinion that is found in our admissible evidence in this proceeding. >> is the march 19 press conference in evidence?
11:15 pm
ms. kaiser. >> that is a good question. you are talking about 164 and 165? my understanding is that it is not. >> you cross-examined him, did you use it with him? >> i think not. either any there paragraphs where she is lying on admitted evidence. >> the main 164 and 165 or are you speaking about 166 fax >> 166, too. is there a dissenting view. >> paragraph 184. relies on sheriff mirkarimi's decorations. >> good point. that should be in.
11:16 pm
ok, if that was confusing -- i know that was confusing. i figured when you said 184 and 184 is the last paragraph, that meant that you had covered all of them. >> he was doing 52 through 180. >> we're confused. >> -- through 180 and i was giving ahead to 84. >> the range is at 1 feet. we're half at the range. my understanding was she said 152 to 180.
11:17 pm
>> we're at 158 to 184. there were interim ones that we admitted. 159, strike 162 when a three- 184, ok. you had an objection to appoint seven on page 3. >> i accepted it. that should go out.
11:18 pm
six. >> and relevance, i do not think i can expand further than enough. -- further than i have. >> i cannot expand further on that point either but i did want to make clear for the record that the fact that we agreed she removed some parts of the declaration does not mean we did not agree. we were trying to implement the commission. tixla ehud -- to the extension that you [unintelligible] that it was irrelevant or unfounded. >> ok. does the commission had a view as tubal 0.6 -- a bullet point six? >> that is the opinion about the
11:19 pm
uninformed batterer, i do not think it is relevant to what we have some new. i would be inclined to exclude it. >> i would agree. did any of the commissioners -- there are a number of parikh grubbs i reviewed and thought were relevant and should be in. i get -- identified the ones i thought were not. did the others have passe[inaud] ok. we will isue our [inaudible] we are moving pretty quickly through a fairly large amount of text. i would like the ability to
11:20 pm
bring something to the commission. attention basin that he says, based on whether there was something in evidence the defense fought -- i did not spot. i you are doing with the share of's retest -- sheriff;s request for a dr =t y ceremony. que>> the request for impeachmet testimony? >> i hope i communicated our concerns in the written rest. if we were not the chance -- the mayor did not testify truthfully under oath. there is going to be a cloud,
11:21 pm
for black and there -- lack of a better term. the mayor has stated his belief under oath that he has a civic duty to do this and he is doing this for no other purpose. if that is the case, there should be no need for false testimony. if there was, that raises a big question in my view about what are the true motivations behind the ringing of these official charges of misconduct? i do not think it is -- solves the problem to say, this is impeachment on a collateral issue. the mayor has said on numerous occasions he is doing this because he thinks it's the right thing to do and that we have these high standards of official misconduct and the sheriff has fallen below that. everyone could agree that
11:22 pm
testifying truthfully under oath is -- that is what we expect a public officials and if you do not do that, those falls behind those standards. if the mail -- if the mayor felt, we ought to able to show that. >> ms. kaiser. >> i think this is an invitation to a side show. i think you have noticed that one of the sheriff's defense is has been pointing fingers at the mayor. if you look at it, that maybe a good strategy with the public but is a legal matter. it does not matter what the mayor's motivations were. the turner cares whether or not the official committed official misconduct. the charging authority is the
11:23 pm
mayor. the way to test the allegations that -- is with this hearing. it is with thitheir witnesses ad the charter does not care if the mayor's best friends are bitter enemies with the person charged and it does not matter whether or not deterred the official was dishonest -- charging official was dishonest in some way because of the test of the truth is that -- the test of the truth is this hearing. the reason that mariposa testimony was relevant is because it should -- showed his to rotation and of what official misconduct met under the charter. whether he did it truthfully or
11:24 pm
falsely, that is up for you to determine at this hearing. not bring in experts. i would be doing my kids to service and i did not tell you straight out i believe if we had this hearing, it would be quite apparent that the mayor did test, -- testified truthfully. we only have a war of media articles and the only people saying they mayor trusted on tressler are the people had no knowledge. people with knowledge confirm what the mayor testified to. this will be a huge waste of time. mr. within the commission's discretion to conduct this further mini-trial. >> questions?
11:25 pm
>> a common but not a question. my view on this one is that the very purpose of the ethics commission -- our role here is to take and why the voters greeted this multi step process is to take this out of the realm of motivation and politics and put the five of us -- to interpose a spy entities that are by their nature political. i did not need to hear anything from the mayor. it is before us as i mentioned to the public when they said why don't we just drop this, your wasting time and money. the voters said we need to do this. the reason we have to do this is for the reasons you have just heard. so that we can independently, regardless of how it got here, make the determinations that the
11:26 pm
bill the record and make a recommendation and it goes through another political body with an extremely high standard just because the voters were looking for us to be a bridge, a separation, as independent as they can find body to do this. i do not think we need to inquire into any of that. >> i agree with you. i want to say one thing. i consider very seriously any allegation that someone came before us and did not testify truthfully. this does not work unless we have truthful testimony by people who are sworn under penalty of perjury. i'm not diminishing the seriousness of a perjury allegation. the other thing is that the ethics commission could not adjudicate perjury. that is a matter for the da, it
11:27 pm
is a criminal action and not something we can decide. what is relevant to us is whether or not the testimony would help us decide whether official misconduct occurred. in my view, the issue is tioo collateral for it to merit additional testimony. our efforts to get a record that is complete, but also is as free as possible from issues that really are not material to our determination of official misconduct. vice-chairperson studley: i appreciate that we said. i did not mean to minimize any of that. so i appreciate your saying that and i agree. >> and want to -- to not want to cut off any of the commissioners.
11:28 pm
i would appreciate it if the d.a. was not out there saying i will but the ethics commission do with it. i read the papers and i saw what he said. i agree with you that you could not make a finding that a criminal offense occurred, true, but you could make a factual determination of whether or not the witness testified falsely under oath in my view, that ought to impact your decisions. >> had you objected to the mariposa declaration, i would have been inclined to sustain it. he testified because he put in a declaration, you agreed to cross-examine him. maybe -- may have been effective. just because he testified about it does not mean in this material to our decision about
11:29 pm
whether your conduct -- client committed official misconduct. >> the reason i disagree with that opinion is, the mayor is the prosecutor here. he is the chief accuser. in any other context, in a criminal context, when the accuser is biased, when the person bringing the charges, the d.a., city attorney, an attorney general, if they are biased, that buys can be elicited and they can be recused from further prosecution. we do not have the remedy here. our remedy is to try to expose it if it exists and there is no other way for us to do this. >> i understand your position. i do not think that even if it is shown that he was -- even if your proffer is correct, i am finding it hard to determine, how to see how that would be something material to our decision


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on